DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Pages

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Deputy Tadier Talks State Media (Part 1)

We carry on this theme, in an interview, with Jersey Politician Deputy Montfort Tadier who on a number of occasions has fallen victim to "Jersey Journalism."

In this frank, in-depth and exclusive interview the Deputy tells us of the latest piece of (at best) lazy "journalism" from Jersey's only "News"Paper The Jersey Evening Post. Something he himself has Blogged HERE.

Deputy Tadier tells us, among much more, he believes that "Reporters are working within an institutional Bias." He goes on to say "Bloggers completely change the dynamic" and wants "a level playing field" between the State Media and Bloggers when it comes to filming/reporting States and Scrutiny (Parliamentary Select Committee) Meetings and Hearings.

66 comments:

The JEP reporter publishes an article one day pointing out how bad it is for a politician to spoil a ballot paper. The very next day the same reporter publishes an article wrongly claiming that Tadier had admitted to spoiling his ballot paper and he thinks that is lazy journalism? Get real Tadier that's state media at its best.

Nice having a politician and a blogger giving their views on the media in Jersey. Is Rico a lot more open and honest sounding because he isn't a politician and therefor has a lot less to worry about. It sounded like you were having to drag answers out of him is that how it sounded to you when you were interviewing Deputy Tadier. I feel he was being somewhat guarded in his answers that is only my opinion..

The idea of a mandatory code of conduct is brilliant. If all media representatives, whether CTV, Rico Sorda, or anyone else, had to agree to rigorous ethical standards of reporting before being allowed to cover key government meetings, it could be a game changer. It would help draw attention to the enormous gaps between factual evidence and the reporting by the traditional news outlets.

Of course, the State Media might decide to avoid coverage altogether rather than report the truth, as they have with Graham Power's statement, and other key stories. Their first choice is to spin any truth they stumble upon into an unrecognizable fairy tale, but leaving out a topic altogether is the State Media's well established back-up strategy for political information control.

But, by avoiding inconvenient news topics State Media creates either a news and information vacuum or an ideal opportunity for independent media to step in and provide factual coverage. More than providing a counterpoint political view, you then become the island's only source of that information, as you have been on some of your best stories.

That is the area where you have truly hoisted them by their own petards.

"Of course, the State Media might decide to avoid coverage altogether rather than report the truth, as they have with Graham Power's statement, and other key stories. "

As was mentioned in the interview BBC Jersey has had hold of the former Police Chief's 62,000 word statement to the Wiltshire Constabulary for around SIX WEEKS.

Mr. Power's statement is his defence to the Wiltshire findings (The Prosecution). BBC, along with the rest of the island's State Media, published and broadcast the prosecution case. One would think that the BBC have some kind of an obligation of fairness and balance to report even a fraction of the defence case?

You have hit the nail on the head VFC and the three words that stand out in your last comment are 'obligation', 'balance' and 'fairness', which is not evident in any of their reporting.

As the Islands only media outlets this should be an essential, but sadly there are still people who are so entrenched in the idea that everything you read in the JEP or hear on TV MUST be the truth, that it is a long hard slog to educate them otherwise. I find it very hard to convince people that there is always another side to any story, and also why I try wherever possible to attend as much as I can when I feel full facts will not get reported (and they don't).

Jill, you are absolutly right. Too many people believe everything that is broadcast on the One Eyed God. The BBC have been caught out again and again and againj telling lies, they even tried it on with the Queen, editing a documentary to make out that the Queen was getting stroppy.

I dont understand why you waste your space on Tadier. He is only concerned about himself. He wouldn't be bothered about the press reports if his name wasn't included. The bloke is all about himself and keeping you onside is just a meer extension of ensuring he keeps a position in the states. Seriously, ask yourself, what has he done for you? The answer is nothing. Lots of people say Stuart Syvret is a waste of your time, I disagree with that but Montfort Tadier is the epitomy of a waste of time. He will ditch you at the drop of a hat so long as he gets his wages.

Dont believe me? Well, how much effort did he actually put in supporting your cause during the elections? None, he even flamboyantly left the scrutiny panel as it may have affected his chances of being re elected. I cant believe you support this spineless pillock. He is taking you for a ride in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, although it is not entirely shared. On another note,

Stuart Syvret is to appear in the Magistrates Court this coming Friday at 10.am to answer outstanding charges concerning Data Protection. He has been given a Release Date of December the 9th 2011. Although this could, and probably will, change significantly as he has outstanding fines that he either cannot or will not pay so has asked the relative authorities to add the prison time for them onto his current sentence. Inevitably, as there are still outstanding charges, this too might prolong his imprisonment.

Surprise surprise! As Stuart said on http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2011/10/reminder.html

"The magistrate's court sessions are usually in the mornings, but they long ago decided to try and always schedule mine in the afternoon, so that they take place with only a few people in the public gallery.

In the normal sessions, the gallery is very crowded, with people waiting to have their speeding cases, etc dealt with, and there will often be friends there to support people.

The Jersey oligarchy live in fear of the way they always conduct these corrupt proceedings against me being witnessed live by large numbers of ordinary people, hence the "special" scheduling their repressions against me always receive.

So put that date and time in your diaries, and come along if you can. I know most people can't, because they're at work - but it always helps - for the historic record - to have a few people there as witnesses - like last time, when I was unlawfully prevented by Baker and Shaw from making my case."

I am after the reporting by all media on our recent elections somewhat disillusioned.

No one from citizen media approached me during the elections for an interview of any description nor asked me any questions over the election period full stop.

Only one video was produced with me on it during the hustings by a citizen media person and he clumped my video section behind another candidates, not exactly fair reporting when this person did a load of individual people at hustings videos, so you could view one lady candidate in front of me on a video and the other lady candidate had three videos done of her individually, not what I would call an equal media coverage!

I won't ever bother to say anything on the JEP reporting, no need to really.To top it off the JEP would not even publish my thank you letter reproduced below for your benefit,

Letter quote.Dear All,I Just want to say a big thank you to those of you who honoured me with your votes in the 2011 election, and give my congratulates publically to those who were elected and my sympathy to those who were not and I say "I'll be Back" .Regards, Linda Corby End quote.

You might like what I got back from Chris Bright Editor of the JEP with regards to my thank you letter above. Quote:Thank you for your recent letter of thanks concerning the election.I regret that it is not suitable for publication in our letters of thanks columns, which areprimarily reserved for charitable organizations. You are, of course, welcome to take anadvertisement along similar lines to those of Senator Le Gresley or Deputy Green onpages 12 and 20 of today's JEP. Our advertising department can be contacted by emailon advertising(a),ierseyeveningpost.comI am sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, but am sure you will understand myreasons.End quote.

A lot of people commented to me during the elections that one of the reasons they do not bother to look at Jersey's citizen media on the internet is because (and this is from their comments)they only report on politics and mainly on Stuart Syvret and the child abuse case.

Now for example citizen media could report on the latest books published by local Jersey authors.

I just brought one out especially to help others and because I self-publish the JEP will not report on it or review it in any way, maybe because it is me? But they did say that they will not review any self published books, however I have seen reviews in their papers self published books before?

I went out of my way to make sure anyone could report in any way they wished over the elections, it was me that put the proposition forwards in the first place, seconded by Mark F and then agreed by all.

It would have been nice if full reporting had been done at all the hustings by any media so more people knew what everyone's answers where to all the questions asked.

I will be honest I personally felt let down by the lack of coverage done, and felt that the reporting as a whole was lazy by everyone.

It is actually bias as well as lazy not to cover equally all candidates whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them politically or not, in order for people to decide for themselves and vote accordingly.

Health permitting I will stand again for election in 2014, and I can honestly say that no media is likely to favour me, because no-one can say that any of them did at the last elections.

The only reporter to interview me after the elections was Edward Salt, go figure!

To redress the balance, I am going to copy this post and put it onto my blog after tea. It's not much that I can do, but if it makes just one person see how biased that blasted paper is it will be something.

Feeling disillusioned with the corruption of local state approved journalism is understandable, but there is reason for optimism regarding the media in the long term.

When anyone researches the Jersey abuse scandal or other political matters in the future, it will all but certainly be through on-line searches.

I am often astonished by the interest this story holds for the outsiders I meet, so it is hard to believe this story will not continue to attract outside attention.

Over time, any objective web researcher will stumble upon the extreme divergence between facts in evidence and the local state media version, and the independent citizens' media are responsible for that.

The influence of the state media in Jersey will fade away as surely as the state media will in many other corrupt places. In order to prevent that from happening in Jersey, there would have to be enough web censorship to arouse legal retribution from outside lawyers.

Yes it wouldn't take long for any serious researcher to cotton on that children's teeth (65 of them and some with root still attached) all falling through the same gap in a floorboard isn't a convincing story. Nor would they entertain the tooth fairy tale given to us by Mick Gradwell.

A serious researcher would also want to know how-come collagen (only found in mammals) exists in Coconuts over here?

The State Media's version of events is nothing more than a fairy tale where Bloggers rely on documented evidence.

You are absolutely right. 65 milk teeth found under floorboards is categorical proof of murder. It is clear that the national media has been bought off my the States of Jersey not to report this watertight case of child murder.

As Mr. Harper, and others, have repeatedly said there is no categorical proof of murder. There is however more than enough evidence to show that children’s remains were buried/disposed of/incinerated up there. If you believe it is possible (as does the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand) that 65 children’s teeth (some with root still attached which suggests they were not shed naturally) all fell out of children’s mouths and fell through the exact same gap in a floor board I’d have to ask…………Do you want to buy some magic Beans?

Well, it is the season for pantomimes after all. With all that creepy sneering, and specially that smirk on Mick Gradwells face in that video, he and Ian le Marquand would make a great pair of ugly sisters.

Those human remains - there were other pieces of bone found as well as the alleged coconut that collagen was found in - why would any children be buried in unmarked graves on unhallowed ground at a childrens home? Surely even orphans have been entitled to a proper burial service by law for quite a long time?

An unsuccessful Senatorial candidate has commented here critically about bloggers coverage of the elctions and her campaign in particular.Obviously, if she thinks she could do better than I hope that she will try at the next opportunity.My first election campaign blog was an interview with Denise Carroll on 26 July. From that time I worked my socks off trying to cover as many election issues and candidates as possible.I attended enough hustings meetings and heard more than enough banal speeches to last a lifetime.I extended an invitation to any candidates or members of the public with something to say to get in touch with me if they wanted to be interviewed but I don't think any did. On the other hand I did extend invitations to many candidates who could not even be bothered to reply.I think that my blog included interviews or speech extracts from about two dozen candidates in District 1 and 3/4 St Helier, St Saviour and St Martin besides the Senatorial campaign.In addition I posted interviews with a large number of members of the public - especially in District 1 - and with other relevant commentators such as John Christensen.

To suggest that this one man blogger could do more or that I was in some way blameworthy for failing to publicise this complaining candidate is absurd.I posted an example of her Senatorial election speech, along with several other candidates, without edit or critical comment. That others expressed more interesting political views is not my problem.

I am an unpaid, under-resourced and equipped blogger. If somebody's face does not manage to get in front of my camcorder then they do not appear on my blog. It is as simple as that. There is no conspiracy, plot or intrigue. Often it is just simply a matter of practicality. One camcorder cannot catch all the action. I do the best I can but fully realise that some people will offer no thanks but just simply want to whinge.We have it in our power to produce alternative media structures but we must be realistic too. A single camera cannot compete with the resources of the JEP, CTV, 103 and the BBC.

I don't think Linda is criticising us unpaid bloggers. I think she's just as fed up as the rest of us that we don't have a proper balanced fair media. I didn't take it as a personal insult what she said, it's the same as I feel, this big GRRRRRRRR! inside of me, that good people like Stuart Syvret are being persecuted and put in prison and people are getting persecuted for trying to stop corruption and abuse, and why isn't it front page news? And the incredible way Mick Gradwell has acted, and the biased coverage of the elections, and the frustration it causes.

She knows that some of us are pretty smashed up people, just doing out best to try to stop other people getting smashed up.

I suggest that Zoompad reads again Linda Corby's comment here specifically about bloggers and the coverage of her election campaign.I am not aware that Zoompad undertook any reporting of the elections but I am aware of Zoompad's restricted agenda.That is not a criticism but Zoompad evidently does not attempt to deal with a wide range of issues here. That is Zoompad's campaigning choice.I have campaigned on a wide range of isues for more than forty years in Jersey.Linda Corby's critical comments are specifically aimed. They do not apply to Zoompad simply because Zoompad writes about other matters.

I have one agenda and that is to stop institutional child abuse and bring those who abuse children to justice, and stop them re-abusing their origional victims.

Linda Corby has complained about the way the JEP covered the elections in a biased way. The JEP DID cover the elections in a biased way.

Tom Gruchy, if it's you leaving those anonymous comments on my blog, or a friend of yours, please note that I won't be publishing any more of them unless you add your name. I actually think it's quite rude to go traipsing onto peoples blogs anonymously to try to stir up bad feeling. Put your name on stuff if you want me to publish it in future please, as I dont really like mind games, I have my DS if I feel like playing games.

If Linda Corby is feeling frustrated and cross, then join the club. We've all had a gutful of this JEP/BBC/accredited media propaganda non news reporting nonsense.

Tom Gruchy most certainly is not leaving any comments on Zoompad's site. But is also puzzled to know why Zoompad cannot comprehend that Linda Corby is so ultra critical of bloggers here - not just the accredited media.How strange it all is and such a waste of my time.Perhaps my latest blog posting on tomgruchy.blogspot.com will give both something more important to think about and comment upon.

I'll not publish your last two comments. You clearly have a gripe against Tom Gruchy and that gripe would be best taken to his BLOGSITE although the subject matter on his current Blog should not be ignored particularly in favour of a personal gripe.

I know Tom Gruchy personally and can vouch that leaving anonymous comments ANYWHERE is not something he would do.

Briefly he refused to pay his fines and got an extra 4 weeks and 6 days imprisonment. Two Data Protection charges were dropped and a request, by Stuart Syvret, (notably not the State Media) for the court to reconsider its decision to have a ban on naming “Nurse M” was rejected. Hope to post more soon just waiting for the State Media to give their version of what happened.

Here's an idea for your commenters. How about committing to a complete halt to all criticism of those who are trying to make the world a better place for decent people?

Well meaning commenters might just try a little harder to confine their criticism to those who have a nasty or greedy intent.

Jersey is swarming with them. If you confine your support to only the most perfect allies, you will have NONE!

Just for a brief time, why not prioritize your targets? You may think that constant criticism of others who are striving for justice is helpful, but it is not, especially in a place where every well meaning person is already worn down and disillusioned enough. Your real targets are getting a free pass.

On another forum, there are a dozen comments a day now about what Stuart Syvret has done wrong. Free speech is fine, and that should be everyone's right. The problem is, Jersey has not made much progress in establishing a transparent, human rights compliant democracy, and the child abuse saga is one of the most glaring examples in the world. So, the one man who has done the most to further those causes, ie free speech, justice for abuse survivors, governmental accountability and judicial fairness, is currently the single most criticized man in Jersey. And he sits in jail!

The irony is, most public criticism of Stuart and other justice seeking activists is found on progressive blogs and forums. And the squabbling between progressive and good hearted commenters is creating a grand diversion for anything that matters.

Linda Corby, Stuart Syvret, Team Voice, Zoompad and Tom Gruchy are allies of those who are fighting for just causes. Unless it is unquestionably necessary for them to publicly correct each other, or for them to be publicly criticized, it should be avoided.

Should any hard working and unpaid blogger be pressured to blog more about other things? That would be pressing those who are already completely overextended to do more, when they already do far more than their fair share. It is long past time for many new people to fill the gaps.

There are countless excellent books and articles on bringing progressives together. Most would suggest that you can't move anything forward with over-analysis of each others' faults. Ask daily, "Does this help get us where we need to be?" and your efforts will be greatly empowered, without any bickering over how to set up a movement.

Fully agree. Peoples time might be better spent looking at individuals such as Philip Bailhache and The Sharp Report, his Liberation Day Highjacking, the Roger Holland Affair and how the State Media keep all that under wraps. Ask Jon Gripton of BBC Jersey why he hasn't reported a single word of Former Police Chief Graham Power's 62,000 word submission to Wiltshire despite having hold of it for more than SIX WEEKS?

Realistically. The Bailhache's and the likes of, must be feeling a bit unsettled that Stuart Syvret has made it clear, before appearing in court today, that he wants all of his debts and wrong doings(?), sorted out.

Today they did this.

In fact in less than 7 weeks Stuart Syvret will be a debt free and free man.

"Unless it is unquestionably necessary for them to publicly correct each other, or for them to be publicly criticized, it should be avoided. "

Sometimes it is. Believe it or not, I really hate arguments. But I hate being lied to even more.

Anyway, I am feeling so sad Stuart is going to be in prison over Christmas, though at least he's getting a break from all the horrible cyber bullying. I am going to make him a pop up Christmas card tonight. I am stressed out and think I will get on with a bit of Christmas card making ect. I dont know how that Blog of Doom gets away with the horrible things they are posting, but they seem to be above the law - for now. Though I know that many officers in the police are pretty fed up of these historic abuse cover ups, and are reopening some of the stuff that the people who are celebrating Stuart's continued imprisonment. peoploe would be mistaken if they assume that there are not some very brave and decent people in the police forces around the country. They are also fooling themselves if they think they are above the law. The saying goes, the bigger they are the harder they fall.

In fact in less than 7 weeks Stuart Syvret will be a debt free and free man.”

That’s not strictly correct. He has amassed a huge debt in court costs that have been awarded against him. They can’t be far off 100k but after the AG dropping the charges against him today, costs were not awarded to him, kind of like a one way traffic, will see if/how the State Media Report that.

Stuart said that they would bankrupt him, so that he could not stand as a politician.

The thing is, they will come to the end of their rope soon. They won't have anything else to throw at him.

Stuart mentioned the possibility of them assassinating him, but there are some of us praying for God to protect him, and God won't let that happen.

Besides, the historic abuse police have realised how they have been tricked, thanks in part to me sending them that book I nagged everyone to read. They have realised that it is unfinished business and have quietly begun opening the cases up again. They are busy right now, and this time they will make sure they have a cast iron case against all the miscreants, with no wriggle room at all. This time, the big boys who assumed they were above the law will find out that they are the same as everyone else. They might all be celebrating and popping corks about Stuart being in prison right now but they won't be laughing soon.

Trust the Lord, he's watching over all of this, and evil is not going to win. Keep the faith.

Could someone please point me to the 65 teeth evidence postings.Either my memory is failing me ,or I never read the details at the time.Seems a little far fetched that 65 teeth turned up together,surely they turned up under the same room?Unless I am mistaken they turned up under our playroom,which would make sense to me. What does Mr. Harper have to say about their dispersion.

“Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.”

"Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.

From HERE although there are many other postings where we have published "documented evidence" concerning the human juvenile remains including the teeth.

The paedos are starting to panic now. They are going after Lenny, but it's not Lenny they need to worry about, its all the other police they have gloated about, the ones who they insulted in their stinking book THE APPALLING VISTA. It was a bad mistake the paedos made, printing that book online. They think too much of that idiot Ralph Underwager, who told them to be bold. In their arrogance they have blown away their cover. That book is a must read to anyone who wants to understand how the paedos operate.

If they try to do to Lenny what they did to Stuart they are going to come a cropper. They will find that the police are not the soft touch that they reckoned on them being. They will also find that the British police are not so stupid as they thought.

"You are entitled to your opinion, although it is not entirely shared. On another note"

Ok just to remind you your response was to my opinion on Montfort. I reposted my question on his blog and he has let it through once again but has still not given an answer. Maybe he thinks I am trolling but I assure you I am not I just want an answer.

Here is my question

"You know Montfort, when Jimmy (funniest thing out of him is a fart) Perchard asks this bit

" I challenge any Member in recent times to give an example of where the Bailiff when presiding over this Assembly has displayed anything but neutrality and impartiality. If any Member can give an example - a real example; not a blog site example - a real example, let him stand up today and tell us about it."

Why did no member stand up and say something, one incident springs to mind when he cut off Stuart Syvrets microphone when he spoke about the abuse issues many years ago. You could have mentioned that as an example, no?

I am hoping you will be able to put me to right on this because as I see it at this moment I am right royaly miffed that nobody stood up and said anything. How are you going to make a change if you all sit there and miss an opurtunity like that."

I remember at the original time I asked the question that someone responded that montfort wont because he cant answer difficult questions. Well, that person was right because despite it being reposted on his blog he still hasnt bothered to answer it.

So its ok to think he is concerned and sort of on your side, fact is he would not and still will not answer that simple question. If he is as up for it as he makes you believe then I am seriously not understanding why he did not stand up and give the perfect example about lack of impartiality and neutrality as I mentioned above.

The one good thing about citizens media is that each and every of the many millions of sites can focus on topics that are of public interest, they can keep on top of issues by following up.

I guess if I was interested in the latest book published I would search for a site that covered that area. For anyone to believe it was remotely possible for unpaid and mostly under resourced blogs to cover everything that anyone believes they should, is surely from some other planet!!

The question of a media watchdog for Jersey is interesting one. I wonder should it examine and police blogs like this one that sets itself up as an alternative media outlet? What do you think? I asked Deputy Tadier this question but so far have had no response.

Not sure that "policing" is the correct terminology. Blogs should at least have a level playing field when it comes to filming "public" hearings etc.

The "accredited" media are supposedly "policed" by OFCOM, PCC etc but they have been, and continue to, broadcast and publish complete codswallop. The "accredited" media, or in Jersey's case "The State Media" are certainly not the level that all Bloggers should be judged at.

Should Blogs be policed? NO is the State Media policed? NO. Jersey's State Media, when they're not covering a story up the story they do put out, more often than not, is what they've been given by the State Communication Unit. Blogs like this one, do what the State Media should be doing, and question what has been given by the State Communication Unit, rather than just churn it out and expect to be regarded as a "journalist."

Perhaps if/when the “accredited” media are adequately regulated and conformed to their code of conduct, or in the BBC’s case their charter, then the subject of Blog regulation could be looked at, but not policed and freedom of speech should not be suppressed particularly by the government. What do you think?

I agree with you that freedom of speech should not be violated, but I wonder why there should be rules for accredited media and no rules at all for unaccredited media? After all, you both do interviews with politicians and ex-members of the police force.

But there’s the rub though. In theory the “accredited” media have rules but in practice they don’t adhere to them, neither are they answerable when they break them as they so often do. Look at how Jersey’s State Media misreported the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry and its expenditure. Look how they completely misrepresented the Report published by BDO/Alto. The list could go on and on with Jersey’s State Media but one only needs to look at the Leveson Enquiry and the Parliamentary Select Committee reviewing the News International shambles to understand the ethics of the “accredited” media. They (accredited media) can in no way be held in a higher regard than Blogs like this one.